Budget season came to Washington in earnest this week, bringing with it new House and Senate proposals and more talk of deficit and debt reduction. The debates are growing more intense, but if anything is to happen there are some strong historical patterns that will have to be overcome.

It’s easy to think that the deficit and debt reduction battles are undergirded by hard philosophical principles, but when you look at the issue over the years, it comes down to a question of timing. It’s not whether to make cuts, but when. And the way people decide the timing doesn’t follow a simple partisan red/blue breakdown.

If you want a good sense of where Democrats and Republicans stand on Washington’s red ink, you don’t need to ask about deficits or GDP growth or federal spending. The better question may be who occupies the Oval Office. There is less enthusiasm for cuts when one’s own side controls the White House. The issue of deficit and debt reduction faces a particularly complicated challenge in what might be called a Not In My Administration, or NIMA, bias.

That bias is not a surprise inside the Beltway or in the halls of Congress, where Democrats and Republicans generally want to make life easier for the occupant of the White House when he is from their party. It extends far beyond there, however, into rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans across the country, according to the Pew Research Center.

Over the last dozen years Pew Research has asked Americans about their “top priorities” for the president. The answer among Democrats and Republicans on deficit reduction has predictably bounced up and down with NIMA as a guide depending on whether George W. Bush or Barack Obama was president. Independents generally sit somewhere in between.

In 2002, the second year of President Bush’s first term, 42% of Democrats thought deficit reduction should be a top priority. Among independents, the number was 39% and Republicans were at 28%. By 2005, everyone had become more focused on the deficit, but Democrats led the way, with 65% saying the deficit should be a top priority. Independents were at 55% and Republicans were at 49%.

Click on the graphic for a larger image.

Flash forward to 2010, the second year of President Obama’s first term, and Republicans passed Democrats in deficit concern. Republicans were at 62%, and Democrats and independents were both at 61%. The latest Pew Research numbers for 2013, find that 84% of Republicans now think that deficit reduction is a top priority. Democrats are at 67% and independents are 71%.

The numbers show an even sharper shift when you look at where those “top priorities” rank among partisans over time.

In 2005, “reducing the budget deficit” ranked eighth out of a long list of possible priorities among both Democrats and Republicans. By 2013, “reducing the deficit” jumped to priority No. 2 for Republicans, just behind “strengthening the nation’s economy.” For Democrats, it has fallen to priority No. 11, behind a long list of issues including “reducing health care costs,” “securing Medicare,” and “improving education.”

Without question, there are signs that deficit reduction has grown as a priority among voters. Independents put it at No. 3, behind the economy and jobs. And if you look back at those numbers, you see a clear tilt upward among all the groups since 2002. But since the country was rocked financially, a lot of these numbers are up. Generally, more people think more issues should be “top priorities” in Washington.

What’s going on here? There are a few possible explanations.

The most cynical thought may be that Democratic and Republican voters simply echo back to pollsters what they hear through the media as if they are receiving talking points. They, like their surrogates in Washington, want the easiest road for their man when he is in the White House — and cutting is harder than spending.

It’s also possible, though, that bounces in the numbers represent real differences in opinion on governmental priorities. Maybe Republicans were less concerned with deficits in 2005 because they were concerned with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and thought too many cuts could hurt defense. Maybe Democrats are less concerned about deficits now that the economy is weak and they think the county is better served in the long-term by funding schools and making health care more affordable.

In the end, whether NIMA is truly about governmental priorities, simple partisan support or something else entirely, may be a moot point. Regardless, these numbers show is why cutting the deficit is so hard.

It’s not that people don’t support debt or deficit reduction. The question is one of timing and for a large segment of the population, the time to tackle the deficit is going to be later.

About Washington Wire

Washington Wire is one of the oldest standing features in American journalism. Since the Wire launched on Sept. 20, 1940, the Journal has offered readers an informal look at the capital. Now online, the Wire provides a succession of glimpses at what’s happening behind hot stories and warnings of what to watch for in the days ahead. The Wire is led by Reid J. Epstein, with contributions from the rest of the bureau. Washington Wire now also includes Think Tank, our home for outside analysis from policy and political thinkers.